15,000 km on my Brooks saddle and it's not broken in yet?

[Keith Boone]

I have a Brooks Professional saddle, the kind with "Pre-Softened"
stamped on the top. I love this saddle, and although I sometimes
try other saddles I always end up switching back. My question is
why, after all this riding, do I not see the indentations which
are supposed to appear conforming to the shape of my "sit bones".

I find the saddle to be the most comfortable that I have ridden,
but I'm puzzled as to why it still appears to have the original
shape as it came from the factory. Has anyone else who rides a
leather saddle noticed anything similar to this?

(Oh, by the way, I have only treated the leather using Proofide
as Brooks recommends. None of that "soak in oil and bash it with
a baseball bat" stuff.)

[Jkpoulos7]

>My question is
>why, after all this riding, do I not see the indentations which
>are supposed to appear conforming to the shape of my "sit bones".

I thought my B17 had not conformed until I looked at it from the front and saw
the sit bone indents. Brooks saddles are wonderful even without the indents so
dont worry about it

[Tim McTeague]

I just bought a Brooks Swift after trying many plastic saddles and never
getting comfortable. I used to use Turbos and liked them, then got a Flite
when they first came out. It was not as nice as the Turbo but pretty good.
Tired a Max Flite and it was terrible, San Marco Era, Filte TT, Terry Fly,
Avocet 02, and a Turbomatic 4. The latter was the most comfortable but I
still found myself squirming to find a comfortable spot. I never used to
have this problem and thought it was my shorts and tried several pairs with
no real change. I then decided to go retro and buy a Brooks. It was pretty
comfortable on the first ride and after two rides I could see faint
depressions where my sit bones are. I have less than 100 miles on it so far
and love it! So much for the horror stories of super long break in periods.
Friends, who have just gotten into cycling, asked me why I had what looked
to be the most uncomfortable saddle in the world on my bike. I'm sure that
is what keeps many from trying these wonders, that and the weight However,
the Swift is about 360 grams so it is not too bad. I did notice a small
crack or scratch in the middle of one of the depressions and it was not
there when I put on the Proofhide. The leather on the Swift is less thick
than the Pro so I don't know if this will be a problem.

Tim McTeague

"Keith Boone" > wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
> I have a Brooks Professional saddle, the kind with "Pre-Softened"
> stamped on the top. I love this saddle, and although I sometimes
> try other saddles I always end up switching back. My question is
> why, after all this riding, do I not see the indentations which
> are supposed to appear conforming to the shape of my "sit bones".
>
> I find the saddle to be the most comfortable that I have ridden,
> but I'm puzzled as to why it still appears to have the original
> shape as it came from the factory. Has anyone else who rides a
> leather saddle noticed anything similar to this?
>
> (Oh, by the way, I have only treated the leather using Proofide
> as Brooks recommends. None of that "soak in oil and bash it with
> a baseball bat" stuff.)
>

[Robin Hubert]

"garyaiki" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Keith Boone" > wrote in message
> le.rogers.com...
> > I have a Brooks Professional saddle,
> ...
> > but I'm puzzled as to why it still appears to have the original
> > shape as it came from the factory. Has anyone else who rides a
> > leather saddle noticed anything similar to this?
> >
> I've had a beautiful "honey" brown Swift for a couple years that feels as
> hard as it did on day one.

Tell me, how can the "honey" saddle be beautifull after hitting it with some
ass-sweat? I recommend black Brooks to anyone who must have one.

>My old padded plastic saddle gave me numb nuts on
> long rides because it let me slide up the neck. Do that on a Brooks and
you
> instantly get your sits bones back where they belong, hence no more numb
> nuts.
>
> My theory about Brooks break in is that natural leather isn't uniformly
> pliable, one saddle may break in easily while another never does.

Every leather-covered plastic saddle of one model or another I've ever seen
has been uniformly pliable. The Brooks sounds like a gamble.

> Back in the day every good bike had a leather saddle and nobody gave it
any
> thought.

Back in the day people rode wood rims. Time to move on.



--
Robin Hubert >

[TNyzio]

>My question is
>why, after all this riding, do I not see the indentations which
>are supposed to appear conforming to the shape of my "sit bones".

This may sound stupid, but there's a chance that you're sitting too far back on
the saddle. Because of the rail design, it's tough to get a Brooks far enough
back to allow the sit bones to rest ahead of the saddle's frame (where the
rivets are). To get the saddle to break in, the sit bones have to be ahead of
the frame, resting on the leather like a hammock. If you set up the saddle the
same as you would a modern saddle (like a flite), it won't be far enough back,
and you could be resting too much weight on the rear frame.

[Marten Hoffmann]

schreef ...

> This may sound stupid, but there's a chance that you're sitting too far back on
> the saddle. Because of the rail design, it's tough to get a Brooks far enough
> back to allow the sit bones to rest ahead of the saddle's frame (where the
> rivets are). To get the saddle to break in, the sit bones have to be ahead of
> the frame, resting on the leather like a hammock. If you set up the saddle the
> same as you would a modern saddle (like a flite), it won't be far enough back,
> and you could be resting too much weight on the rear frame.

I had this problem too and took to a Selcof Biposition seatpost to
correct this (www.selcof.com/eng/sella_a5.html)

--
Regards,
Marten

[(Pete Cresswell)]

RE/
>This may sound stupid, but there's a chance that you're sitting too far back on
>the saddle. Because of the rail design, it's tough to get a Brooks far enough
>back to allow the sit bones to rest ahead of the saddle's frame (where the
>rivets are).

Been there, done that. Jerked a lot of people around about saddle width until
it finally dawned on me that I was sitting on the rivets.


-----------------------
PeteCresswell

[(Pete Cresswell)]

RE/
>This seatpost looks like something I might want.
>Care to comment on durability for a 210 pound rider?

Can't comment on that one, but I'm 210# and using a Titec "HellBent" that gives
me microadjustability and 2" of setback.

Been riding on it for the best part of a year and no problems yet - but I'm
riding FS, so it's not really getting punished that much.

As far as I know that's the most setback of any post available. Actually I
could go for 3"....so somebody say something if there's more available.
-----------------------
PeteCresswell

[Keith Boone]

TNyzio wrote:
>>My question is
>>why, after all this riding, do I not see the indentations which
>>are supposed to appear conforming to the shape of my "sit bones".
>
>
> This may sound stupid, but there's a chance that you're sitting too far back on
> the saddle. Because of the rail design, it's tough to get a Brooks far enough
> back to allow the sit bones to rest ahead of the saddle's frame (where the
> rivets are). To get the saddle to break in, the sit bones have to be ahead of
> the frame, resting on the leather like a hammock. If you set up the saddle the
> same as you would a modern saddle (like a flite), it won't be far enough back,
> and you could be resting too much weight on the rear frame.
>
>

I have now checked this out more carefully, and I think you are entirely
correct. On closer inspection I can see two very slight indentations
just ahead of the rivets, and it is now obvious that this is where I'm
sitting. I keep the nose of the saddle pointing very slightly down,
and I guess what happens is I sit almost on top of the rivets to keep
from sliding forward.

I moved the seat back a little tonight and went out for a short ride.
Once I forced myself to stay off the rivets, I could immediately
notice the softer feeling of the seat. I'll try riding like this for
a while, but since I'm so used to sitting over the rivets, I might end
up going back to this position. It just feels more natural to me at
this point, and like I said in the original post, I've always found the
saddle to be comfortable anyway. Thanks for your help.

[Rick Onanian]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:45:12 GMT, (Pete Cresswell) > wrote:
> Can't comment on that one, but I'm 210# and using a Titec "HellBent" that
>
> Been riding on it for the best part of a year and no problems yet - but
> I'm riding FS, so it's not really getting punished that much.

I was thinking of it for my road bike, actually.

> As far as I know that's the most setback of any post available.
> Actually I
> could go for 3"....so somebody say something if there's more available.

I recall, as a child, older kids on BMX-style department
store bikes with seatposts bent way back. One of my bikes
even came with one, and my dad cut it or replaced it with
a straight one, or something.

I'll bet those went at least 3" back. I imagine that they
would put a lot of stress on the seat tube, especially
where the post enters the tube; that is, if the seatpost
itself could be strong enough.

You could also consider a Thud Buster or Tricky Dick
suspension seatpost. They weigh a bit more, and people
will look at you funny for having a suspension post on
a FS bike, but you could conceivably adjust them to be
way back, though that adjustment would probably involve
removing the elastomers and securing the seatpost
suspension in it's compressed position, making it a very
expensive, heavy, non-suspension seatpost that looks silly.

> -----------------------
> PeteCresswell
--
Rick Onanian